Trippy Speaks Out!
by Trippy McStumblefoot
Summary: Trippy replies to your comments about his stories. Third round of responses posted!
1. Round One, Fight!

TRIPPY SPEAKS OUT!  
  
Tickle me pleasantly surprised at the responses. It seems for the most part that people are agreeing with me, but raising two very good points:  
  
The first is that the stories are in no way deceptively labeled. They are each clearly marked NC-17, which further presents a dialog confirming your age. The story titles and descriptions make clear the nature of the content. Therefore, those complaining should realize that they are viewing an open forum in which a multitude of opinions may be expressed. If they come upon content that appears distasteful, they should ignore it.  
  
The second is that regardless of what I may say, the stories show a great deal of disrespect toward beliefs that many hold sacred. All I can say to this is that, for the most part, humor stems from a lack of respect, be it towards self or a sensitive social issue or philosophy.  
  
If I were to try to classify myself, I believe I'd be a post-structuralist secular humanist. As far as the issue of respect goes, while I may not have a great deal of respect for your beliefs in and of themselves, I respect your right to believe in whatever you wish.  
  
That said, let me touch upon some comments:  
  
imokru writes:  
  
"You know what else? Another thing occured to me right after I reviewed last time. Putting a start to a dialogue thing like this up really seems like you're just trying to start an arguement. People have already said if they liked your stuff or not. They have every right to not like what you write. If you are going to write stuff mocking Jesus in the Bible section, be prepared for a lot of bad reviews because you have to know that its going to upset people. Quit whining. That's just the way it goes."  
  
I would urge you to read what I have written before replying as it seems apparent to me that you have not. Furthermore, upon reading the comments it seems that for the most part people are in agreement with what I have said, so this review stood out somewhat.  
  
"One last thing. It's also kind of annoying when all you non-christian types start lumping all the Christians in together {That's an example of irony, all you non-christian types that I'm lumping into one category :) }"  
  
Again, please read what I have written. I very clearly distinguished between those who responded in a Christian manner and those who made what I essentially consider to be "threats upon my soul," and have gone so far to say that such people are not true Christians. Furthermore, I applauded those who came off as true Christians for sticking to their beliefs.  
  
"Obviously the people who tell you to go to Hell are not the same as those people who just say that they don't like what you write. There is a different degree of spiritual maturity, obviously. I doubt those "go to hell" people really understand what the Chriatian faith is about."  
  
This was the crux of the latter half of what I wrote.  
  
Tallulah responds:  
  
"Hmmm. Interesting points you make, congrats on doing a coherent argument! Can I argue back? Can I can I can I? Oh, what the hell, I will...  
1) I still think you are needlessly upsetting people on this. When someone has strong religious belief it's usually kinder to respect their beliefs. Making fun of their religious figures may please some, but it hurts others. I guess that's why some have been flaming you. You say you're not trying to infuriate Christians...but you don't seem to be trying to please them that much either!"  
  
Indeed I am not. I'm certainly not saying that I wasn't expecting flames or that people don't have the right to flame me. I was merely commenting on the hypocrisy of the flamers.  
  
"2) I agree with you about the flamers who threaten you with hell. :)"  
  
Thank you. It seems most people are in agreement on this point.  
  
"3) Don't diss Harry Potter! And why does getting laid automatically not make you a loser?"  
  
You'll have to excuse me on this. Someone pointed out that I was further mistaken on this point (the person who originally posted the comments appears to be a girl)  
  
kori wrote in with a lengthy post, so lengthy that I decided not to post it here.  
  
Well I certainly followed what you wrote... and while you didn't seem to be making any clear argument I agree with what you said. I apologize for taking your post out of context, as I needed to use it to illustrate a particular point. I didn't mean to demean you in any way.  
  
hemlock writes:  
  
"And what's wrong with reading Harry Potter?"  
  
Well, I'm not here to start a debate about Harry Potter as quality literature. My favored authors fall along the lines of Ellings, Faulkner, and Dennett. Consequently, I don't find the work of Rowling to be quite up to par with my standards.  
  
"Well,I guess I could just do like everyone else and call you all sorts of names but....God is not gay,or straight or anything for that matter.He(term used for convenience)is neither male or female and does not have sexual desires of any sort.It is foolish to write something like this because God created sex and is'nt bound by it. The creator of all existence is not bound to human desires.Well,there's your food for thought,and here's a fork.Dig in."  
  
A very interesting point you raise. I believe you will have a tough time defending this assertion scripturally within the context of the Hebrew scriptures. Namely, God is referred to using the Hebrew word "hu", the third person male pronoun. Furthermore, what is seen as "ho" in the name "Jehovah" is the same pronoun "hu".  
  
As to whether or not God possesses the male member, I believe that lacking evidence to the contrary that entirely left to individual interpretation.  
  
purple mage writes:  
  
"Frankly, I find this offensive. BUt I won't condemn you to an eternity of hellfire. Only God can do that. Question, though. WHy do you call us defending Christians "hypocrites"? Have we no right to defend? We are defending a character in this stupid story as much as you are defending the story itself. Hey, think about it, that also makes you a hypocrite. Oh, joy. So, before any of you cretins [look that up in the dictionary, will you? Yes, C is between B and D] write another idiotic stupid moronic story like this one, why don't you think about it first?"  
  
The question you are asking is why I am calling the "defending Christians" hypocrites. Well, that isn't entirely accurate. I am calling the Christians who are reacting in an un-Christian manner (that is, the ones screaming for my blood) hypocrites, as they have professed their adherence to a particular doctrine, and consequently ask others to adhere to that particular doctrine while ignoring it themselves.  
  
"We are defending a character in this stupid story as much as you are defending the story itself. Hey, think about it, that also makes you a hypocrite."  
  
I don't follow your logic here. I adhere to no particular doctrine, nor do I ask anyone to follow a particular doctrine. As an agnostic I neither avow nor deny the existance of Christ or any other deity, and consequently neither avow nor deny any particular codified set of morals. As I am professing no particular system of beliefs, it is technically impossible for me to be a hypocrite.   
  
Crescent Lancer notes:  
  
"Listen, man, you ruined my life! I was watching 'Jesus Christ Superstar' and I was thinking how cute Pilate and Jesus would be together! Oh well, this was still amusing..."  
  
My sincerest apologies. Apparently I hadn't fully considered the lasting repercussions this story may have.  
  
IcaWolf writes:  
  
"But 1 thing...i really don't like the way you use n--ger in this...i mean, in teh one about jim christian it seemed that you were just using it to show taht that's how the character talked and htought, but here it's your word...yah, i no u don't give a f--- what people think about ur writing or else you wouldn't write anymore but that really offends me...but whatever, you are free to write whatever you want! I will always stick by that, no matter how offended i get."  
  
I assumed this particular word (n--ger, a word which began as a derogatory term for blacks, censored here as I am trying to maintain a PG rating) would strike a chord with someone. I tend to abhor the increasingly PC nature of the world in which we live today. The rationale behind using it is simple... words such as this are only harmful so long as people take offense to their use. When a word such as this becomes taboo because of its connotations, there exists no chance of its harmful meaning being diluted through casual use.  
  
Vee-sempai writes:  
  
"Dude, you're Jewish? That's even cooler, then. At least you actually have a basic understanding of what you write about, unlike a good deal of others here. Again, kudos to your courage."  
  
I am no longer Jewish. That is to say, I was Jewish by doctrine only and not by bloodline. Jews have married into my family (for example, my uncle) and I believe a small fraction of my original bloodline may have been Jewish, however I haven't traced my family tree back far enough to confirm this.  
  
And to conclude on a lighter note, Tallulah asks:  
  
"And why does getting laid automatically not make you a loser?"  
  
It's not that getting laid instantly removes any traces of loserhood from a person. I know many losers who have been laid. The removal of loserhood by means of getting laid is a temporary effect, lasting perhaps a week at most but more likely a day. However, the likelyhood of one being a loser decreases with the frequency at which that person is getting laid, unless said individual is getting laid only with other losers. 


	2. The Infamous N-Word!

TRIPPY SPEAKS OUT  
  
Wow, I wasn't expecting to be responding so quickly. However, someone has touched upon an issue upon which I have a vested interest: free speech. Specifically...  
  
Tallulah notes:  
  
"1) Sorry, but I wasn't totally sure about the point about 'n__ger' (if everyone else is blanking it out, I will too). There's a fine line between politically correct and just being considerate and I personally think the above word crosses that line (if you follow me.) Sorry, but as long as there's racism in the world, people are gonna be using harmful words...and using them yourself mightn't dilute them, it might just hurt some people and encourage others."  
  
This is precisely the attitude I wish to abolish. You have been conditioned by society in a Pavlovian fashion to elicit a particular response to that word. Simply put, racist attitudes are thorougly depicted in conjunction with the use of that word by the mainstream media, both for the purposes of entertainment and education (read: brainwashing) by society's PC thugs.  
  
The advocates of PC seek to subvert negative connotations by keeping semantics fluid. If it takes you a great deal of time to even comprehend what a particular term means, and furthermore if you must ask what a word or phrase means and receive several sentences of explanation, chances are the negative connotations of a particular stereotype will not immediately surface.  
  
Contrarily, PC advocates seek to worsen the perception of negative stereotypes associated with particular words. PC propaganda will often depict scenarios in which a person of a particular subgroup of whatever sort for which there exists some sort of derogatory term becomes deeply offended when someone else uses that term in respect to the original person. The original person then proudly asserts that he/she is not a , he/she is a .  
  
Repeated conditioning to this effect often leaves those outside a particular group overly conscious of the semantics they use when referring to a particular subgroup. The effect of the PC rationalle is damaging in that it narrows the perceptions of the subgroups to the point where the individual is ignored and all that is seen is the label associated with the subgroup.  
  
Personally, I treat gay people different from your run-of-the-mill straight white male. I likewise treat black people and the handicapped differently. This is because society has conditioned me to see these sorts of people as being exceptions to the norm.  
  
Now, the following is something you can't very well take my word on, but it's something you've probably heard before. These sorts of people don't like being seen as a label. They wish to be seen as individuals and treated without reference to their subgroup. Obviously the only way to verify this is to confront someone who belongs to a particular subgroup. A question like "What should I call you? A negro? An African-American? Black?" will result in an answer along the lines of "Call me Steve."  
  
At any rate, back to the infamous n-word. This word does indeed have quite a past. As it slowly began to lose its negative connotations and enter mainstream acceptance the PC thugs were quick to attempt to reenforce the fading negative connotations by repeated displays of its use in an offensive manner.  
  
It is amazing to observe how societal conditioning causes such altered perspectives of a work which uses such a word. Take for example "Tokyo Breakfast," a 6 minute show which repeatedly uses the n-word. (Tokyo Breakfast may be viewed at http://www.mysterymeatgrinder.com/tokyo_breakfast.asx. If you have been brainwashed by PC thugs, you may wish to refrain from watching.)  
  
One reviewer had this to say:  
"that piece of crap isn't funny or surprising. the truth is so many of asians attitude and views of black people is no different from many white people views and attitude of black people. asians are some of the most racist people i have come across. they're no different from racist white people. the only difference is white people have more power than them overall."  
  
While another had the following perspective:  
"the sitcom is actually a parody that portrays america in an awkward, outlandish manner. the actors use the term n----- simply to poke fun at the fact that everywhere in america people call each other n----- even if they're not black. in this way, african americans are not made the subject of ridicule, but all of us. and they're right, that term has been rendered meaningless. and you gotta admit, that's pretty d funny."  
  
Two radically different perspectives, one from a person clinging to the negative connotations of the word, another from someone who realizes people are abandoning the negative connotations as the word slowly gains mainstream acceptance.  
  
Tokyo Breakfast ends with a black deliveryman entering the apartment. He shouts "Did somebody order a case of Fortys?" Now, two things may happen at this point. The first would be that the characters could exhibit the PC-style reaction, which is that they would instantly think of the negative connotations of the word, and thus refrain from using it in his presence. The next would be a malicious, racist attitude in which they intentionally use their common knowledge of the negative connotations to defame the deliveryman due to some sort of racist agenda. The third, the reaction I believe is being exhibited, is that they don't consider the negative connotations at all, and with smiling faces and about as much regard as when they repeatedly called each other the n-word, respond to the "Did somebody order a case of Fortys?" question with "WE DID, N----!"  
  
I think it is obvious from this that I possess disdain for advocates of PC, and I prefer to express myself openly, unencumbered by societal restrictions. But for those of you with closed minds who still believe the PC rationalle is indeed beneficial to stereotypes rather than hindering and would rather I not use the word at all, we shall examine the connotations and see precisely what effect each word creates in context.  
  
I have used the n-word two different ways. The first is as a casual address between characters. In one such case the two characters were lovers. None of these exhibit any sort of connotation. In these the word is completely devoid of meaning. The word serves an expletive in the grammatical sense, that if omitted it would not alter the meaning of the sentence. This is precisely the effect I think all words should have, and as society is currently progressing will eventually have sometime in the near future as generation by generation negative connotations fade and words gain greater popular acceptance.  
  
The other usage was to satirically re-enforce a given stereotype, the racist southern United States resident who attests his Christianity but does very much the opposite in deed. In this case stereotypes are utilized as a comedic device, and for some reason when the word was used in such a way that it carries a negative connotation, people were not offended.  
  
This matter confuses me greatly. When "foul" language is used intentionally to reflect back negatively on a particular character, people seem to have fewer problems than when it is used in such a way that it is completely devoid of meaning. I would say people who feel this way are listening to the little PC thug inside their head, who says "It's okay to say bad words if they're used to illustrate that a given character is bad, because we want to enforce negative connotations of words so that they are less likely to be openly used, and in this respect no one will be offended because everyone will be afraid of openly using a word with negative connotations."  
  
This reasoning is flawed in that slowly these words are losing their negative connotations. By reenforcing negative connotations PC thugs are only prolonging the duration for which particular words will be offensive, or are doing even worse things such as reenforcing nearly nonexistant negative connotations such as with the terms "secretary" versus "administrative assistant."  
  
At any rate, I will continue in my quest to eliminate negative connotations by pushing for mainstream acceptance of various words, a path which seeks an open perspective rather than a more close-minded Orwellian one.  
  
(My apologies to everyone for posting something like this in the Bible forum) 


End file.
